Decision 1978S – State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)

SF-CE-230-S

Decision Date: September 26, 2008

Decision Type: PERB Decision

View Full Text (PDF)

Perc Vol: 32
Perc Index: 148

Decision Headnotes

100.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; OPERATION OF EERA, DILLS (SEERA), HEERA
100.03000 – Purpose of the Act

The Dills Act is a limited delegation of authority by the Legislature to the Governor, allowing DPA, as the State employer's representative, the authority to bargain with the State's unions to determine terms and conditions of employment. The Dills Act does not preclude the Legislature from enacting terms and conditions of employment which, if implemented by DPA without legislative direction, would have been an unfair practice if not negotiated. DPA's implementation of the alternate retirement program amounted to the State's compliance with law as prescribed by the legislative process and not unilateral implementation of a change in policy on the part of the State as employer.

103.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; CONSTITUTIONALITY OF EERA, DILLS, HEERA
103.03000 – State Issues

The Dills Act is a limited delegation of authority by the Legislature to the Governor, allowing DPA, as the State employer's representative, the authority to bargain with the State's unions to determine terms and conditions of employment. The Dills Act does not preclude the Legislature from enacting terms and conditions of employment which, if implemented by DPA without legislative direction, would have been an unfair practice if not negotiated. DPA's implementation of the alternate retirement program amounted to the State's compliance with law as prescribed by the legislative process and not unilateral implementation of a change in policy on the part of the State as employer. The State did not commit an unlawful unilateral change in policy by virtue of the Governor's signing SB 1105 into law, because in signing the legislation the Governor was carrying out a function directed by the California Constitution. When the Governor is acting as a participant in the legislative process and is fulfilling his/her constitutional responsibilities, those acts are to be viewed separate and apart from his/her responsibilities as chief executive and employer of State employees. The Governor's role in considering and signing legislation, as prescribed in the California Constitution, does not amount to a unilateral change in policy by the State.

104.00000 – PERB: OPERATION, JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY; STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF BOARD
104.03000 – Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts

Court of Appeal decisions are binding precedent on administrative agencies. The court's legal and factual determinations as to the alternate retirement program are binding to the extent they impact the Board's analysis of the program under the Dills Act.

601.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000)
601.01000 – In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case

The Dills Act does not preclude the Legislature from enacting terms and conditions of employment which, if implemented by DPA without legislative direction, would have been an unfair practice if not negotiated. DPA's implementation of the alternate retirement program amounted to the State's compliance with law as prescribed by the legislative process and not unilateral implementation of a change in policy on the part of the State as employer.

601.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH (FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION, SEC 1000)
601.02000 – Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201)

The State did not commit an unlawful unilateral change in policy by virtue of the Governor's signing SB 1105 into law, because in signing the legislation the Governor was carrying out a function directed by the California Constitution. When the Governor is acting as a participant in the legislative process and is fulfilling his/her constitutional responsibilities, those acts are to be viewed separate and apart from his/her responsibilities as chief executive and employer of State employees.

602.00000 – EMPLOYER REFUSAL TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH; UNILATERAL CHANGE (FOR NEGOT OF SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, SEE SEC 1000, SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION)
602.01000 – In General

The Dills Act does not preclude the Legislature from enacting terms and conditions of employment which, if implemented by DPA without legislative direction, would have been an unfair practice if not negotiated. DPA's implementation of the alternate retirement program amounted to the State's compliance with law as prescribed by the legislative process and not unilateral implementation of a change in policy on the part of the State as employer. The State did not commit an unlawful unilateral change in policy by virtue of the Governor's signing SB 1105 into law, because in signing the legislation the Governor was carrying out a function directed by the California Constitution. When the Governor is acting as a participant in the legislative process and is fulfilling his/her constitutional responsibilities, those acts are to be viewed separate and apart from his/her responsibilities as chief executive and employer of State employees. The Governor's role in considering and signing legislation, as prescribed in the California Constitution, does not amount to a unilateral change in policy by the State.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.01000 – In General

Knowledge of pending legislation is not sufficient to demonstrate actual or constructive notice of the clear intent to implement a change in policy. Rather, filing the charge within six months of the enactment of new legislation was timely.

1101.00000 – CASE PROCESSING PROCEDURES; LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING CHARGE
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period

Knowledge of pending legislation is not sufficient to demonstrate actual or constructive notice of the clear intent to implement a change in policy. Rather, filing the charge within six months of the enactment of new legislation was timely.